20 or 22"

[chrisrod01]

Acer 22
Samsung 20 inch
Samsung 20 inch

Which to pick and also what is the differences in both of the samsungs

 

[acegazda]

How much do you have to spend? Is $350 your max?
The samsung panels are nearly identical except it appears that the 205bw consumes less power. (It also ships free)
If you can wait a week till dell stocks their e207fpw, that looks like it's better than all the ones you linked, though the 205bw is the best out of those three. Acer's panels are not of excellent quality I don't think.

 

[dennilfloss]

In case you wonder about the size differences.

http://www.tfnn.net/forum/index.php?topic=16257.0

 

[mshan]

http://www.tvcalculator.com

 

[myocardia]

A 19" non-widescreen would be alot better, about the same size, and cost ~$100 less.

 

[xtknight]

Dell 2007WFP for $340. My thoughts on 22" LCDs for now:

Originally posted by: xtknight
THE 22" WIDESCREEN LCD POST

A ton of people have asked about the 22" LCD screens lately. It's just not practical for me to tell everything to everyone each time I'm asked this, so I've decided to compile my thoughts on them into one big post.

• Color reproduction: Right now, all 22"ers on the market use the so-called 6-bit+Hi-FRC algorithm. This allows the display of 16.7M colors, as on an 8-bit panel, though the dithering artifacts are still present. I have more detailed info on Hi-FRC technology in the OP. It's still not as good as true 8-bit, and frankly, if you're a photo editor, you'll want to look elsewhere.
  
• Dot pitch: 22"@1680x1050 (0.282 mm) is what I'd call a "happy medium" for general usage. Its dot pitch isn't huge like the 19" panels, yet text is more easily readable from afar than with comparable 20" LCDs. Still, it's more than enough for people with average eyesight. Unfortunately, this seems to have a detrimental effect on the response time, as I will detail below. Lower dot pitch doesn't spell good news for TN panels.
  
• Viewing angle: These captures (see "Betrakningsvinklar") of a 22"w CMO TN (CMO M220Z1-L01 Rev C1) look quite convincing. The viewing angles are very decent for a TN.
  
• Response time: 19" TNs are the fastest LCD monitor panels in existence. The main reason seems to be their high dot pitch (0.294 mm @ 1280x1024). As we get down to 0.255 mm (20"), the response time rises, a lot.
  
  Reference 19" TN - LG L1960TQ (0.294 mm) pic
  Reference 22"w TN - Acer AL2216W (0.282 mm) pic
  Reference 20"w TN - Samsung 205BW (0.258 mm) pic
  Reference 20"w S-IPS - NEC 20WMGX2 (0.258 mm) pic
  Reference 20" TN - Samsung 204B (0.255 mm) pic
  
  Either the manufacturers are loosening up the overdrive on the bigger monitors (input lag maybe?), or the dot pitch is making a huge difference. Whatever the case, 20"+ TN LCDs are pretty slow, relatively. The 22" Acer is really showing its achilles heel. It is based on a CMO(?) 22"w TN. No captures of the CMO 22"w TN were available on the same site at the time of this writing. I have doubts of it being any faster. Despite many reports of "no ghosting" (where have you heard that before ), it's obvious the 22" LCD is the worst of the bunch.
  
• Value: Price is one place where the 22" LCDs really shine. You can grab yourself an Acer AL2216WBD (US, Newegg) for $330. Of course, price does not necessarily equal value. If the monitor is lower quality, then you're not really getting that great of a value after all. I feel that you will be a LOT happier spending $340 on a Dell 2007WFP than $330 (or even $375) on a 22" screen. What were we saying about value again? $10 gets you: a lower size...but wait: higher contrast, true 8-bit color reproduction, faster response time, better uniformity, a plethora of video inputs, PIP, video interpolation options, and a better viewing angle (if you get an S-IPS panel). How can you pass up a deal like that?
  
  That my friends is my opinion of 22" LCDs. Not all stories have a happy ending. Two extra inches, but considerably lower quality video. Unless text display is of paramount concern, avoid them and stick with tried and true 20" LCDs such as the Dell 2007WFP. Some may argue that text looks better on lower dot pitch screens because the anti-aliasing contains less noticeable artifacts. That's the general consensus for text display, but obviously if you can't see the text in the first place, you need an LCD with a bigger dot pitch, and that's what the 22" LCDs can provide. Of course, not all of those aspects listed above (faster response time, etc) mean the same thing to everyone. None are that important for clerical use. For multimedia however, you'll be in for much disappointment. Backlight bleeding seems to be rampant in the 225BW, and the response time on the Acer is poor. Whether these areas improve in future 22" remains to be seen. This is the state of 22" LCDs now. There has been talk of 22" S-MVA panels; hopefully TFT panel manufacturers will see a potential high-end sector in the 22" form factor.

Edit: I'm not sure of the panel used in the Acer. The edited sentence doesn't sound so well, but I'm aware.

 

[w00t]

findout what panels are used in those monitors lower ms doesn't mean it's better quality of the panel will determine if it ghosts/motion blur.